GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Nosmo King]

If you believe that, then miscegenation laws did not violate anyone's rights because everyone had the same right to marry as long as it was within their race.

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

 

[bodecea]

If you believe that, then miscegenation laws did not violate anyone's rights because everyone had the same right to marry as long as it was within their race.

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........

Procreation does not require legal marriage.

Legal Marriage does not require Procreation.

My IQ is higher than yours apparently since I knew that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you believe that, then miscegenation laws did not violate anyone's rights because everyone had the same right to marry as long as it was within their race.

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

 

[Nosmo King]

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

That's odd. Because my grandfather re-married when he was in his mid 70's. He married an older woman too. Why were they permitted marriage licenses and the protection of contract law? They certainly weren't about to procreate any time soon.

They must have been looking at all the other benefits of marriage denied to gay people by religious bigots and other meatheads, huh?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

That's odd. Because my grandfather re-married when he was in his mid 70's. He married an older woman too. Why were they permitted marriage licenses and the protection of contract law? They certainly weren't about to procreate any time soon.

They must have been looking at all the other benefits of marriage denied to gay people by religious bigots and other meatheads, huh?

Ahhh, "anecdotal evidence". One of the major refuges of fools.

Go look up the word "primary", Brain Trust, and then come back and tell me what the **** ONE person has to do with it. Or tell me why it is that you utterly ignored the meaning of my post to answer the point you WISH I had made. Was it because you couldn't answer my REAL point, or was it because you're just too illiterate to understand it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't have the right to expect another party to enter into a contract, true.

But the state cannot deny the protections afforded under the system of contract law. If I wanted to form a business with someone other than my exact socio-economic class or age or skin color or any other immutable condition, I have the right to do just that without restriction of the state. As long as I'm over 18 or 21, not a convicted felon and an American citizen, I have the right to ACCESS the protections of contract law.

Except if I'm all those things and also gay.

Then my right to access contract law is restricted.

Same sex marriage IS gay rights.

I'm not a gay man. I have no personal stake in this issue except as an American. The restrictions put upon sober, sane, taxpaying Americans all because of their sexual preference (which itself is not a crime) runs against what I believe this nation stands for: equal justice under the law.

Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

No, I didn't. I stated that the ONLY restrictions on the access to contract law are eerily similar to the only restrictions on voting. You must be of the age of majority and an American citizen without prior felony convictions.

Funny thing about rights like free speech, it doesn't matter if you are only 8, you still have it. Marriage is, or should be, a legal contract. That means that the government gets to interfere all it wants, just like it does in every other legal contract you get yourself involved in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

It is? Gay rights is only about relationships, and not the actual individuals? That will surprise every civil rights activist I ever met that believed that the right of the individual is paramount.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

And opposition to marriage between the races is also not opposition to their rights either.
Sure, right.
I find it amusing that anyone that has a brain and any knowledge of The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, would want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than do what the Founders intended the Constitution to stand for which IS TO TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO.
Gay marriage does not affct any straight couple negatively in any way.To a true conservative it is a non issue.
Here we have the deficit, the wars, health care crisis, energy crisis,education crisis and 137 other PRIORITIES and these clowns are focused on GAY MARRIAGE.
The pandering to the religous kooks is on. Bad news for conservatives.

Do you find it intellectually demeaning to argue points in an attempt to prove how ridiculous your position is?

Not that I think they are correct in their attempt to uphold DOMA, but I can realize that it is possible to actually look at this issue strictly from a fiscal standpoint, and argue that expanding the federal definition of marriage will add to the deficit, and probably result in an increase in taxes. If the only position you can see is that it is racist to oppose gay marriage, you shouldn't even be discussing the issue here, which is same sex marriage, not gay marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

He knows that. He is repeating talking points.

Saying all I am doing is repeating talking points when you resort to the race card in response to my stating an opinion you do not agree with is rich.

 

[bodecea]

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

He knows that. He is repeating talking points.

Saying all I am doing is repeating talking points when you resort to the race card in response to my stating an opinion you do not agree with is rich.

What race card was that he "resorted to"?

 

[bodecea]

False.

Gender differences are biological and bring forth procreation.

The lower the IQ - the further left........

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

If that is the primary interest, then marriage laws OF COURSE state that. Show us one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He knows that. He is repeating talking points.

Saying all I am doing is repeating talking points when you resort to the race card in response to my stating an opinion you do not agree with is rich.

What race card was that he "resorted to"?

Read the posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a minor point.

Opposition to same sex marriage is not opposition to gay rights.

Whoa. That's preposterous. The central premise of 'gay rights' is the recognition of gay relationships having equal status with heterosexual relationships.

It is? Gay rights is only about relationships, and not the actual individuals? That will surprise every civil rights activist I ever met that believed that the right of the individual is paramount.

How many gay rights activists do you know that are not advocating for legal gay marriage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, but like it or not, the primary purpose of marriage IS the production and raising of children. That is also the primary interest that the state has in marriages.

That's odd. Because my grandfather re-married when he was in his mid 70's. He married an older woman too. Why were they permitted marriage licenses and the protection of contract law? They certainly weren't about to procreate any time soon.

They must have been looking at all the other benefits of marriage denied to gay people by religious bigots and other meatheads, huh?

Ahhh, "anecdotal evidence". One of the major refuges of fools.

Go look up the word "primary", Brain Trust, and then come back and tell me what the **** ONE person has to do with it. Or tell me why it is that you utterly ignored the meaning of my post to answer the point you WISH I had made. Was it because you couldn't answer my REAL point, or was it because you're just too illiterate to understand it?

Name one instance, or one state, or one law, that denies heterosexuals the right to marry if they are incapable of having children together.

One.

 

[bodecea]

Saying all I am doing is repeating talking points when you resort to the race card in response to my stating an opinion you do not agree with is rich.

What race card was that he "resorted to"?

Read the posts.

I did...still not seeing a race card. Perhaps you can narrow it down a little and link the post where it's used.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

The reason for marriage is that humans have developed the knowledge that it benefits stable societies if males take responsibility in the raising and support of their progeny. Marriage is the institution which has developed to support and promote that prospect. Stable families support free societies - which is precisely why the left attacks the nuclear family at every turn.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Procreation does not require legal marriage.

Legal Marriage does not require Procreation.

Is out of wedlock procreation a positive influence on society?

My IQ is higher than yours apparently since I knew that.

Your IQ is apparently lower than that of my Dingo.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's odd. Because my grandfather re-married when he was in his mid 70's. He married an older woman too. Why were they permitted marriage licenses and the protection of contract law? They certainly weren't about to procreate any time soon.

So what?

Clearly, the lower the IQ, the further to the left...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is procreation the only reason for marriage?

The reason for marriage is that humans have developed the knowledge that it benefits stable societies if males take responsibility in the raising and support of their progeny. Marriage is the institution which has developed to support and promote that prospect. Stable families support free societies - which is precisely why the left attacks the nuclear family at every turn.

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's odd. Because my grandfather re-married when he was in his mid 70's. He married an older woman too. Why were they permitted marriage licenses and the protection of contract law? They certainly weren't about to procreate any time soon.

So what?

Clearly, the lower the IQ, the further to the left...

You should answer his question. Why were they permitted to marry?